PlanManager MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering by category and status but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'top-level' means operationally. For a read operation with siblings that modify data, more transparency about safety and constraints is needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the structure is clear and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's scope and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, errors) and sibling differentiation, which are important for a listing tool among many plan-related operations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that parameters filter results (e.g., 'category: Filter by category') and provides examples ('travel', 'study'), which clarifies usage beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't cover all possible values or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List top-level plans (items without a parent).' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('top-level plans'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on parentless items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_plans' or 'get_plan_details', which slightly limits sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search_plans' and 'get_plan_details' available, there's no indication of when this filtered listing is preferred over broader searches or detailed views. Usage context is implied but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.